Steeles Royal

‘PEOPLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED AL-QAEDA’: GABBARD IN HEATED EXCHANGE WITH SEN. KELLY

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,929
2,244
113
Ghawar
Kyle Anzalone
Jan 30, 2025

During the confirmation hearing for Director of National Intelligence, Senator Mark Kelly attacked nominee Tulsi Gabbard over her past criticisms of US policy in Syria. Kelly asserted that Gabbard was repeating Russian talking points, while Tulsi argued that she was exposing US support for al-Qaeda.

During Thursday’s Senate committee session, Sen. Kelly brought up Gabbard’s frequent criticism of US policy in Syria. He claimed that Gabbard was repeating Russian and Iranian talking points by discussing the US support for terror groups in Syria.

Gabbard fired back at Kelly, explaining why she viewed the policies of supporting terrorists as a personal affront, “as someone who enlisted in the military specifically because of Al Qaeda’s terrorist attack on 9/11 and committing myself and my life to doing what I could to defeat these terrorists.”

“It was shocking and a betrayal to me and every person who was killed on 9/11, their families, and my brothers and sisters in uniform.” She continued, “When as a member of Congress, I learned about President Obama’s, dual programs that he had begun, really to overthrow the regime of Syria and being willing to, through the CIA’s Timber Sycamore program that has now been made public, of working with and arming and equipping Al Qaeda in an effort to overthrow that regime, starting yet another regime change war in the Middle East.”

Even though Gabbard’s answer invoked her patriotism and call to service, Kelly again attacked the former Congresswoman as parroting Russian and Iranian points. “My concern has to do with the tendency to repeat Russian and Syrian and even in some cases, I think we’ll get into in the closed session, Iranian information and to discount what comes from our intelligence community.”

Gabbard responded definitively, “Senator, every American deserves to know that people in our own government were providing support to our sworn enemy, Al Qaeda. That should not be acceptable by anyone. Thank you.”

While Kelly may argue that Gabbard was repeating Russian and Iranian statements on the matter, legendary American journalist Seymour Hersh reported on the CIA program in 2014. “The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line,’ a back channel highway into Syria,” he wrote in the London Review of Books. “The rat line, authorized in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida.”

The CIA program to fund and arm opposition groups began in 2012 and culminated in the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December. Assad was removed from power by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

HTS is led by Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who recently declared himself President of Syria without holding elections. Julani was a member of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was moved to join the terrorist group after seeing the results of the 9/11 attack on the US.

At the time the Timber Sycamore program started, it was well known to the Obama administration that the opposition was mainly comprised of jihadist fighters. At the time, Jake Sullivan sent an email to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explaining, “AQ is on our side in Syria,” he wrote referring to al-Qaeda.

 

L8Guy

Active member
Oct 31, 2010
127
120
43
The US has over many, many years, constantly supported terrible regimes if they felt it was in their best interests. The people there and every else be damned, as long as it was in the best interests of the US. Then, when 'the wind changed' they abandoned those regimes.

In general the US has historically only cared about themselves and their interests EVER! The general US person has no idea what it is like in Canada. As an example, at a function in Cleveland during a July hot spell, many people (US people), when they found out I was from Toronto, wanted to know how much snow we have now in Toronto ............... really? Hey even the President that invaded Iraq couldn't point out Iraq on a map.

The general US person has been and will continue to be a joke. That doesn't mean all Americans, just most Americans!
 

southpaw

Well-known member
May 21, 2002
661
650
113
Because the USA has never supported people like that.....cough Taliban...cough..
You have to understand where basketcase is coming from. If it's better for Israel to have AQ in charge of Syria, that's all that matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,198
6,930
113
Because the USA has never supported people like that.....cough Taliban...cough..
Yes, in politics, the enemy of our enemy has always been a factor but details matter. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the US supported various Mujahadin groups, some of whom later became the Taliban. Similarly, The US backed some rebel groups including the Kurds and the Syrian Free Army made up of secular(ish) former Assad commanders. The US backed groups that at times collaborated with AQ against Assad and some of the weapons supplied by the US made their way to various other rebel groups likely including AQ. And NATO member Turkey has been running their own Syrian army acting against Assad and the Kurds and collaborated with HTS in their recent offensive and some Turkish weapons were originally sourced from the US.

There are a lot of complexities that makes the statement "US supports AQ" an interesting place to start a discussion but the way Frank uses it as a political attack tool is untrue.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
31,098
5,204
113
Yes, in politics, the enemy of our enemy has always been a factor but details matter. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the US supported various Mujahadin groups, some of whom later became the Taliban. Similarly, The US backed some rebel groups including the Kurds and the Syrian Free Army made up of secular(ish) former Assad commanders. The US backed groups that at times collaborated with AQ against Assad and some of the weapons supplied by the US made their way to various other rebel groups likely including AQ. And NATO member Turkey has been running their own Syrian army acting against Assad and the Kurds and collaborated with HTS in their recent offensive and some Turkish weapons were originally sourced from the US.

There are a lot of complexities that makes the statement "US supports AQ" an interesting place to start a discussion but the way Frank uses it as a political attack tool is untrue.
It's more they are sending weapons in and didn't really care who's hands they ended up in.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,198
6,930
113
It's more they are sending weapons in and didn't really care who's hands they ended up in.
Do you have any evidence they didn't care who got them or that they wanted AQ to get weapons or is this like your claims about Hillary assassinating people?
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,929
2,244
113
Ghawar
Al-Qaedea is the preferred enemy of Israel.

Unlike such secular despots as Saddam and Assad
Islamist group like Al-Qaeda and ISIS are too backward
to wage conventional war on Israel. Terrorist attacks are
for Israel's supporters to bear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: southpaw

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
31,098
5,204
113
Do you have any evidence they didn't care who got them or that they wanted AQ to get weapons or is this like your claims about Hillary assassinating people?
If you are sending weapons into what is a failed state where anarchy reigns can you guarantee any weapons don't get sold, captured or otherwise transfered to people you don't want to have them?

Are you really going to say a weapons blackmarket doesn't exist? That there wouldn't be profittiers? That the CIA, so long as their is disruption to Assad, would care so much who?

Cmon dude, seriously?
 

southpaw

Well-known member
May 21, 2002
661
650
113
During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the US supported various Mujahadin groups, some of whom later became the Taliban. Similarly, The US backed some rebel groups including the Kurds and the Syrian Free Army made up of secular(ish) former Assad commanders. The US backed groups that at times collaborated with AQ against Assad and some of the weapons supplied by the US made their way to various other rebel groups likely including AQ.
There's a term for this.
Wouldn't it be better to not support any of these factions? Wouldn't it be better to mind your own business and keep your nose out of theirs?
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,198
6,930
113
There's a term for this.
Wouldn't it be better to not support any of these factions? Wouldn't it be better to mind your own business and keep your nose out of theirs?
Yes, some things don't turn out the way that was planned.

Given a choice between Russia (and now China) having immense influence in world affairs including trade and the US having that influence, it is obvious why the US spends so much effort in international affairs.
 

southpaw

Well-known member
May 21, 2002
661
650
113
Yes, some things don't turn out the way that was planned.

Given a choice between Russia (and now China) having immense influence in world affairs including trade and the US having that influence, it is obvious why the US spends so much effort in international affairs.
Yet China's growing influence has come without any military interventions, for the most part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter
Toronto Escorts